• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes

I don't think so.

It was a very close state in a very close election.

I see nothing wrong with making certain of the results.

But, it was not close. Not close at all. Trump had 1,404,000 votes to Jill Stein's 31,000 votes. There was no chance for Jill Stein to win with a recount. If Hillary wanted a recount then Hillary should have filed for a recount. Funny though, if Jill Stein hadn't been in the race and most of her votes had gone to Clinton, Hillary would have won the state and now Stein has sour grapes because Trump won so she wanted a recount. Candidates with no chance of winning shouldn't even be allowed to request a recount.
 
There were states that the margin of victory was closer than it was in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania or Michigan (like for instance New Hampshire), but Jill Stein and her people were only interested in states where Donald Trump won. The only doubt about the results in those states was manufactured by her and her allies and wasn't based on anything real.

I'm not saying that I oppose election recounts, I just oppose people calling for recounts for nothing more than their own personal, financial and partisan political gain... which is exactly what Jill Stein did.

.

You understand why WI was significant and NH wasn't.... come on. Save your outrage for outrageous things..... If PA, MI and WI on recount changed, then NH would be relevant, but otherwise it was not.

yes, I also understand Stein's motives were not all together altrusitic, but in this case, what she wanted done needed to be done for the historic record. It was Clinton's prerogative, but she was going to exit that race with class and would not look so petty, especially when it was unlikely to change anything.

At the end of the day, however, Trump and America needed it done to be certain of the outcome.
 
:lamo

Bull****, Deuce. Every time it comes up the first thing that spills out of leftists mouths is THATS RACIST!!! And if you think that hinders discussion on the topic, then maybe instead of trying to deny what every single person on this site knows, you should consider if maybe you havent been part of the problem.

And you never stopped to ask why they were saying it's racist, did you? You just stopped listening.
 
And you never stopped to ask why they were saying it's racist, did you? You just stopped listening.
At least you admit your previous statement is bull****. Props for that.

I KNOW why they claim its racist. Its their mantra. Its literally ALL they know. Racism, Class warfare, the war on women. That is the leftist playbook and they have run every single campaign since the 60s on it.
 
At least you admit your previous statement is bull****. Props for that.

I KNOW why they claim its racist. Its their mantra. Its literally ALL they know. Racism, Class warfare, the war on women. That is the leftist playbook and they have run every single campaign since the 60s on it.

The North Carolina case was out in the open. If you can't see it, you're the problem in this discussion, not "the left."
 
The North Carolina case was out in the open. If you can't see it, you're the problem in this discussion, not "the left."
See...the problem when you shriek "wolf!!!' is that the villagers at some point know you are full of ****.
 
You understand why WI was significant and NH wasn't.... come on. Save your outrage for outrageous things..... If PA, MI and WI on recount changed, then NH would be relevant, but otherwise it was not.
It wasn't relevant because Clinton won NH by a really slim margin. had trump won she would have challenged that one as well.

yes, I also understand Stein's motives were not all together altrusitic, but in this case, what she wanted done needed to be done for the historic record. It was Clinton's prerogative, but she was going to exit that race with class and would not look so petty, especially when it was unlikely to change anything.

The courts disagreed with her.

At the end of the day, however, Trump and America needed it done to be certain of the outcome.

It is now certain trump won.
 
It wasn't relevant because Clinton won NH by a really slim margin. had trump won she would have challenged that one as well.



The courts disagreed with her.



It is now certain trump won.

But, but, but the Russians influenced the election. Surely the CIA will overturn the results!
 
At least you admit your previous statement is bull****. Props for that.

I KNOW why they claim its racist. Its their mantra. Its literally ALL they know. Racism, Class warfare, the war on women. That is the leftist playbook and they have run every single campaign since the 60s on it.

And they have lost many elections since 2010 because of it but they haven't figured that out yet. Please don't tell them. They still think they can keep on saying that and having help from all of their celebrity friends and the mainstream media and the voters won't figure out that they are full of ****.
 
But, but, but the Russians influenced the election. Surely the CIA will overturn the results!

Ol that is the next depth of lowness from Clinton.

now they are trying to turn over classified data to the electors as some of them have requested
the CIA report.
 
Back
Top Bottom